The Big Dig's Unintended Consequence: More Traffic
by Andrew Posner, Providence, Rhode Island 
on 11.23.08
Boston's Big Dig--the most expensive highway project ever completed in the U.S., which gave Boston "a gleaming new highway system that has made zipping beneath Boston and Boston Harbor much easier"--has had a very ironic and unintended consequence: more traffic. This, of course, is on top of the other unintended consequences of the Big Dig (namely, charges of corruption, fraud, subpar construction, being massively over budget and over schedule, and "a ceiling collapse in the connector tunnel in July 2006 killed a motorist). Read on to find out why a $15 billion project designed to decrease traffic in Boston has had the opposite effect.
According to the Boston Globe, while the Big Dig succeded in increasing "overall mobility by allowing more people to travel at peak times. . .most travelers who use the tunnels are still spending time in traffic jams - just not in the heart of the city, where bumper-to-bumper was a way of life on the old elevated artery." In other words, whereas traffic jams were primarily a downtown phenomenon, "the bottlenecks [have been] pushed outward, as more drivers jockey for the limited space on the major commuting routes."
In fact, the time it takes to travel certain routes has actually doubled as a result of the project. What's perhaps more surprising than these findings is the fact that no one saw it coming. After all, what did people expect? If you build more roads, and don't at the same time provide for more public transit, then sure enough, more people will drive on those roads. At first, people who would avoid driving during rush hour because of the maddening traffic start driving again as they see that the roads are more open. Before long, the expanded roads are filled to capacity again, a new stasis is achieved, and there is a demand for more roads.
I've seen this cycle in Los Angeles, a city that is living proof of why building endless roads is a dead-end strategy. So yes, the Big Dig buried underground what was once an eyesore in the city, and it reduced traffic downtown. But it was also massively expensive, poorly thought out, and has merely pushed the traffic outward. Maybe next time a major U.S. city spends $15 billion on transportation, it will be more a smart network of rail, Bus Rapid Transit, bike lanes and, yes, well designed roads for vehicles.
Via: Boston Globe
More on Boston
Boston's Logan Airport Gets LEED Certification
Boston's Taxi Fleet to Be All Hybrid by 2015
Boston Mandates Green Building Standards for Public and Private Projects
Iconic Boston Building Gets an LED Makeover
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Travel Green and Save Money without Giving Up Anything (Except Your Carbon Footprint)
- Top 10 Things to Bring On Your Cross-Country Bus Trip
- 6 Driving Fundamentals You Must Master to Extend the Life of Your Vehicle
- Save Over $1,000 with These Six Green Tips
- Track Buses by Phone, Internet, Bus Stop
- Zero Waste—The Newest Eco-Fashion Innovation?
If you build it, they will come.
I thought it was well known that building highways increases congestion.
I don't know if the photos are switched or something, but it looks to me like there is less traffic on the "after" photo.
Ban Cars.
Simple. One day it will be achieved.
XVX for life, R.A.S.H. 'til death.
Well if there was a increase in the population within a metro area, then there's always an increase in traffic so it wouldn't matter what roads public works plan is implemented. The answer? More Mass Transit definitely
"After all, what did people expect? If you build more roads, and don't at the same time provide for more public transit, then sure enough, more people will drive on those roads."
Actually, a big part of the original Big Dig agreement involved provisions for improvements and expansions of mass transit in Boston. Unfortunately, the state has been lagging behind on these. The Conservation Law Foundation has written a lot on this: http://clf.org/programs/cases.asp?id=421
The main problem with automobile traffic is that PEOPLE drive the CARS.
And PEOPLE, as a whole, are pretty lousy at it. Face it, you need the focus, concentration, reflexes & skills of a race driver to handle today's speeds & volumes.
Most people can't do it - and stress, snarled traffic & slaughter on the roadways are the result.
Rail is ruinously expensive, serves only a narrow corridor, and is suitable for only the densest cities. Buses have the expense of drivers, which makes them expensive to run & so they run as infrequently as the public will bear. (And both Rail & Bus rides are subsidised to make them affordable - you pay $1-$2 at the farebox, another $5-$7 per rider comes out of the General Fund.) Bike lanes are great except for inclement weather and the risk of trying to co-exist with cars, trucks & buses.
How, about something new? Personal Rapid Transit - podcars - is a system that is cheaper to build than "Light" Rail, cheaper to operate than buses while providing a similar network of routes, and lets you bring your bike, if desired, to provide transportation over the 1st & last quarter mile (or less) from the PRT stop to your final destination.
Follow any one of these links for more info:
http://www.prtstrategies.com/
http://www.gettherefast.org/home.html
http://www.edmontonprt.com/
http://www.taxi2000.com/
Urgent problem all city. And in my city (Moscow)
It is a rule of thumb among traffic engineers that traffic expands to fill the roads.
@ sidewinder
Exactly Sidewinder.. I too am not a supporter of the rail system I am a supporter of the auomatic car...I don't mean the gear box flipping around on it's own, I mean the car which goes to your destination because u poked it on the touch screen GPS...
thats travel... where traffic is uniform.. no delays, people being occupied on the phone or doing stuff instead of driving off of a green light... stuff like that.. sort of like in the movie " I, Robot ".. totally controlled and automated... people can't mess up while telling the car where they want to go can they?? (or maybe they can)... but the biggest problem with this is that driving is fun (well not in a traffic jam actually)...
Nature abhors a vacuum. If you build a bigger highway, it becomes less crowded, so more people will see it as an alternative and then you're back to where you started.
So the solution is either pave the entire planet or stop expanding highways and start expanding public transit.
I think you should also be reminded that the big did Buried the highway, and allowed more greenspace above. I think its a good trade-off.
Also, people. Lets not keep on the "lets ban cars meme". I spend alot of time traveling around the country. In 99% of the places, NOT having a car is not an option. I'm talking about the HUGE swath of the coutry that is rural. In those places, you must have a vehicle.
This was reported as the thing was being built. It's not news.
Also, the before and after images are very misleading. The cars in the"before" image are now in an underground tunnel, and the old ground-level traffic is hidden under the overpass. Basically, everything was pushed down a level.
Also, the goal of the Big Dig was NOT to alleviate traffic. It was to reunite Boston with its waterfront, and to create a more livable city.
The nice thing about having roads underground is that since there are already ventilation systems in place for exhaust, it opens up the possibility for doing at least a partial capture of carbon emissions. It may not be cheap, but at least with an underground system it is possible.